No Marduk, I DID NOT say there was no evidence, I said there was no PROOF.
All the evidence suggested that Newton's unversal law of gravitation was correct. He was unable to PROVE it and it has been supeceded by Einstein.
The only way you can PROVE your case in those illustrations is when the DNA comes along, till then it's a good theory, and as I said earlier, probably correct. But not proven!
Evolutionary news
Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
-
Minimalist
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 16033
- Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
- Location: Arizona
and I don’t believe ID proponents dispute, that ID is an inference rather than a science.
Too bad you weren't here when Arch and Jean Marie were around, Monk.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
-- George Carlin
-- George Carlin
-
marduk
-
Forum Monk
- Posts: 1999
- Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
- Location: USA
I looked at the illustrations and checked the reference.
The dogs represent the result of clever breeding by men for specific tasks such as boar hunting or rat hunting, whatever the case may be.
Checking the article and supplied phylogeny links does not seem to reveal the common ancestor. Is is only suggested as possible. Are there other references or did I miss something?
The dogs represent the result of clever breeding by men for specific tasks such as boar hunting or rat hunting, whatever the case may be.
Checking the article and supplied phylogeny links does not seem to reveal the common ancestor. Is is only suggested as possible. Are there other references or did I miss something?
-
marduk
you missed the fact that Dogs are well known to be descended from wolves
all of them
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm
you claim that evolution isn't valid because it has no proof
the proof for the dogs evolution is fact
are you saying Nature/God can't do the same
pretty crappy god then isnt he
all of them
http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm
you claim that evolution isn't valid because it has no proof
the proof for the dogs evolution is fact
are you saying Nature/God can't do the same
pretty crappy god then isnt he
Are they? Do you perhaps mean those in the northern hemisphere? Are you claiming Jackals as having Lupine ancestors for example? I have not claimed that what you are saying is impossible.
Put it this way. You have a stack of evidence that the man you call 'dad' 'father' 'pop' or whatever is your father, but without a DNA test you lack PROOF!
As with my earlier statement I accept the logic of your case, I am simply making the distinction between what is probable and what is proven fact.
Put it this way. You have a stack of evidence that the man you call 'dad' 'father' 'pop' or whatever is your father, but without a DNA test you lack PROOF!
As with my earlier statement I accept the logic of your case, I am simply making the distinction between what is probable and what is proven fact.
-
marduk
I would have thought the fact that he looks identical to me but is a little bit shorter (my mum was tall) would be accepted as proofYou have a stack of evidence that the man you call 'dad' 'father' 'pop' or whatever is your father, but without a DNA test you lack PROOF!
As with my earlier statement I accept the logic of your case, I am simply making the distinction between what is probable and what is proven fact.
are you claiming that when a bitch gives birth to puppies that look the same breed as her that a different breed did it
clearly Digit you are just being finicky
and your example isnt valid
i dont need dna evidence to prove that my father was who it says he was on my birth certficate
thats not even relevant
do you think i need dna evidence to prove that my father was a human being
that is the question here
perhaps you think he was a daschound
No Marduk, I'm not being finicky. You have demanded proof from the Fundies and they have demanded proof from you. I'm sitting on the fence pointing out that neither of you could win a case in a law court.
I accept your arguments on the same logic as I use to accept that mathematically there must be life on other planets, but we lack proof.
50 years ago that statement would have got me put away, but the evidence remains the same and is now generally accepted.
I accept your arguments on the same logic as I use to accept that mathematically there must be life on other planets, but we lack proof.
50 years ago that statement would have got me put away, but the evidence remains the same and is now generally accepted.
Devolution
On the flip side, there appear to be many cases of devolution also. 
Natural selection favors the paranoid
One of the problems Cog is that each generation follows a certain dogma. Poor old Darwin knew what would happen if he published, now in this country, if some one comes up with a different set of ideas supporters of Darwin will treat them in just the same way.
After all, 50 years ago modern man was descended from Piltdown Man. AND they had the fossils to back it up.
After all, 50 years ago modern man was descended from Piltdown Man. AND they had the fossils to back it up.
-
marduk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcvADtGMLVw
exhibit 1 (pay attention at the 3 and a half minute mark)
the evidence for evolution being guilty is empirical in nature and overhwelming
the evidence for God is hearsay
guess which type of evidence isn't allowed in a court of law
exhibit 1 (pay attention at the 3 and a half minute mark)
rubbishneither of you could win a case in a law court.
the evidence for evolution being guilty is empirical in nature and overhwelming
the evidence for God is hearsay
guess which type of evidence isn't allowed in a court of law
You are working too hard to convince me Marduk because you've missed my point. I accept that Darwin was probably right in general outline. If you go back to when I was daft enough to open my mouth I pointed out that neither you nor Arch would ever be likely to change your mind.
Even Darwin expressed doubts, but like all good theories it answered a lot of questions. The fact that this debate has gone on for over 30 pages I submit is due to entrenched viewpoints.
If there was actual proof in the case of man I doubt we would be digging holes all over Africa. Neither you nor Arch in 30 pages has produced a killer argument.
One of the points that poor old Darwin had thrown at him is still unanswered, and is important, how does one species change into another without dying out because it can't breed if the change is too great.
Darwin suggested small changes, which is logical, but 150 years later no half way house, (missing link) has so far surfaced. I wish it would.
The challenge that was then thrown at Darwin was 'what use is half an eye?'
As I said earler Steve, every generation knows it has the answers.
You commented to one poster about using information from many years ago, quite correct, but if you care to check the history of archaeology many of the earlier idea will look as silly as some modern ones may look when you get to my age.
No generation has a patent on foot in mouth my friend.
When the proof arises Darwinism will promoted to Law, till then it remains a theory.
Even Darwin expressed doubts, but like all good theories it answered a lot of questions. The fact that this debate has gone on for over 30 pages I submit is due to entrenched viewpoints.
If there was actual proof in the case of man I doubt we would be digging holes all over Africa. Neither you nor Arch in 30 pages has produced a killer argument.
One of the points that poor old Darwin had thrown at him is still unanswered, and is important, how does one species change into another without dying out because it can't breed if the change is too great.
Darwin suggested small changes, which is logical, but 150 years later no half way house, (missing link) has so far surfaced. I wish it would.
The challenge that was then thrown at Darwin was 'what use is half an eye?'
As I said earler Steve, every generation knows it has the answers.
You commented to one poster about using information from many years ago, quite correct, but if you care to check the history of archaeology many of the earlier idea will look as silly as some modern ones may look when you get to my age.
No generation has a patent on foot in mouth my friend.
When the proof arises Darwinism will promoted to Law, till then it remains a theory.
I have to agree with digit about the origin of dogs.
There were lots of small mammals around even during
dino time which could have been the ancestors of todays dogs.
As for most if not all of today's breeds of domestic dogs, they mongrelize if left to themselsves and revert to an ur-dog (this has happened in India), which is not very wolf-like. I think that saying all dogs evolved from wolves is like saying people evolved from monkeys.
The same phenomenon of mongrelization happens with goldfish.
Left to their own devices, the devolve back to the original colorless carp from whence they came.
There were lots of small mammals around even during
dino time which could have been the ancestors of todays dogs.
As for most if not all of today's breeds of domestic dogs, they mongrelize if left to themselsves and revert to an ur-dog (this has happened in India), which is not very wolf-like. I think that saying all dogs evolved from wolves is like saying people evolved from monkeys.
The same phenomenon of mongrelization happens with goldfish.
Left to their own devices, the devolve back to the original colorless carp from whence they came.
The deeper you go, the higher you fly.
-
marduk
errr ok
so when did anyone say we were discussing Darwin exactly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I think you ought to read this
re actually sounding like a creationist yourself
shouting Darwin and then claiming there is no proof
heads up for you guys who think this is the issue we are discussing here
Darwin was outmoded about 50 years after he came up with his theories of which there were two
1) natural selection
2) survival of the fittest
so you even mentioning Darwin is creating a straw man argument which you can then easily knock over as most creationists excell at
what you gonna try next claiming that we couldnt have evolved from apes because chimpanzees arent as smart as us (thats their other favourite by the way)
modern evolution examines animals on a cellular level
its not an unproven hypothesis like you seem to be asserting
it is a proven theory based on known facts and empirical data
this is why it is taught in schools
not because it might be true but because it is
clearly you guys have got a lot of reading to do before you say anything else about nothing being proven
so when did anyone say we were discussing Darwin exactly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
I think you ought to read this
.you aCharles Darwin was able to observe variation, infer natural selection and thereby adaptation, but did not know the basis of heritability. He could not explain how organisms might change over generations. It also seemed that when two individuals were crossed, their traits must be blended in the progeny, so that eventually all variation would be lost.
The blending problem was solved when the population geneticists R.A. Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane, married Darwinian evolutionary theory to population genetics, which was based on Mendelian genetics (genes as discrete units of heredity).
The problem of what the mechanisms might be was solved in principle with the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA
re actually sounding like a creationist yourself
shouting Darwin and then claiming there is no proof
heads up for you guys who think this is the issue we are discussing here
Darwin was outmoded about 50 years after he came up with his theories of which there were two
1) natural selection
2) survival of the fittest
so you even mentioning Darwin is creating a straw man argument which you can then easily knock over as most creationists excell at
what you gonna try next claiming that we couldnt have evolved from apes because chimpanzees arent as smart as us (thats their other favourite by the way)
modern evolution examines animals on a cellular level
its not an unproven hypothesis like you seem to be asserting
it is a proven theory based on known facts and empirical data
this is why it is taught in schools
not because it might be true but because it is
clearly you guys have got a lot of reading to do before you say anything else about nothing being proven